11-193. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, res, v. SADA WELE, def-app — Judgment of conviction (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), rendered January 4, 2011, affirmed.
Defendant’s present challenge to the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument is lacking in merit. The information — comprising the misdemeanor complaint and supporting depositions of the arresting police officer and a representative of the trademark owner — alleged, inter alia, that at a specified time at the southeast corner of Canal and Church streets in Manhattan, defendant, without the requisite license, was observed holding a black plastic bag containing hand bags bearing Coach trademarks; that defendant showed the merchandise to “numerous people” and “exchanged the merchandise with [three] customers in return for currency”; that the hand bags sold on the street by defendant were determined to be counterfeit based on several features distinguishing them from genuine Coach hand bags; and that the allegedly counterfeit trademarks appearing on the bags were registered and in use. These factual allegations, “given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading” (People v. Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), were sufficient to establish reasonable cause to believe and a prima facie case that defendant was guilty of unlicensed general vending (see Administrative Code of City of NY §20-453) and third-degree trademark counterfeiting (see Penal Law §165.71). For purposes of our threshold, pleading-stage inquiry, the accusatory instrument sufficiently described the trademark that was allegedly infringed (see People v. Thiam, 189 Misc 2d 810, 812-813 [2001]) and supported a finding that defendant was acting in a “public space” (see Administrative Code §20-452[d]; People v. Abdurraheem, 94 AD3d 569, 570 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 970 [2012]).
